Do you know anyplace where sailors hang out?

> The debt doesn't 'expire' if it's being serviced through payments.

> it absolutely does. You're kidding right?

>I was wrong that the plans end at the end of 10 years.

What's that about a "double down?"

Again, I know who I'm responding to. That's why I said "I was responding to a comment" (not "your comment") when talking about the post that wasn't you, and then said "YOU then said" when talking about what YOU said.

> What exactly did I give that was factually incorrect?

> I was wrong that the plans end at the end of 10 years

I apologize if correcting you has upset you. In the future, I will be more mindful of correcting your false information so as not to hurt your feelings.

I know what you said, that's why I emphasized YOU when I responded to what you said. I was originally responding to someone else.

If you aren't concerned about being "technically correct" then maybe don't give advice to people that can fuck their life up.

You know, you could have also just said "oops, I didn't know that," when confronted with the fact that you were wrong instead of... whatever it is you think you're trying to do.

I was responding to a comment that said "they don't care how long it takes" and "re-payment plans can be a lifetime," which is not true, because tax debt eventually expires and the IRS absolutely cares about you paying it before that date. As you can see, by the text you quoted and highlighted, the IRS will levy you if they think they can be paid before the CSED expires.

YOU then said "the debt doesn't 'expire' if it's being serviced though payments" which is just 100% false.

I was not suggesting OP try to run out the clock, that's a terrible idea. I'm just trying to correct the misinformation that is rampant in this sub from people who don't know what they're talking about, giving advice on what they "feel" is correct or how it "should" work instead of how it actually works.

Nope. See 26 U.S. Code § 6159 and IRM 5.1.19.3.5(6) https://www.irs.gov/irm/part5/irm_05-001-019#idm139995971385904

"The CSED is not suspended while an installment agreement is in effect."

Also IRM 5.14.2.2

https://www.irs.gov/irm/part5/irm_05-014-002r#idm139895071258224
"All taxpayers are expected to immediately full pay delinquent tax liabilities. When this is not possible, taxpayers may be allowed to pay their liabilities over a prescribed period of time. If full payment cannot be achieved by the Collection Statute Expiration Date (CSED), and taxpayers have some ability to pay, the Service can enter into Partial Payment Installment Agreements (PPIAs). The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 amended IRC 6159 to provide this authority."

> Getting on a payment plan should reset that time for them.

Well, it doesn't. Requesting an agreement suspends the statue for the short time the IRS reviews your request, but then it start's back up again.

>The debt doesn't 'expire' if it's being serviced through payments.

Yes it does. It's called a partial pay installment agreement. Installment agreements don't suspend the statute.

That's not true. There's a statute of limitations on tax debt. The IRS is very interested in getting paid before the debt expires.

As someone who used to do what Optima does, you can screw your dad by talking to the IRS direct. The IRS will try to get financial info from you, like expenses, etc. There are some expenses that require proof, and some that don't. For the expenses that don't require proof, there is a set number the IRS will give you if you ask. But if you say a lower number, the IRS will take that and not tell you you could have said a higher number. If you say a low number and Optima says the set number, IRS will say "sorry, taxpayer already told me that expense." Which could cause your dad to have to pay more money. I think Optima charges too much, but if you've already paid them, you might as well see it through and don't undermine what they're trying to do.

I found this to be helpful: https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2022/10/20/the-texas-two-step-a-new-bankruptcy-strategy-to-avoid-corporate-liability

It even includes a quote from the Texas attorney who helped draft the statute being used here.

Do you know much about bankruptcy law? What J&J are trying to do is only really shitty because they tried to pull it like 2 months before trial after wasting a bunch of time in discovery. If they had pulled this when they first started getting sued, it probably would have been fine (maybe, after lookinginto it, I feel like they should have to put the whole companyin BK if that'sthe route they want to take). I think a big thing people are missing is that bankruptcy doesn't mean they don't have to pay. They created a shell company, but creating that company came with a promise to pay the liability once it works its way through the courts. They don't just get to skate on the claims by filing for bankruptcy. Here's a better discussion if you're actually interested: https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2022/10/20/the-texas-two-step-a-new-bankruptcy-strategy-to-avoid-corporate-liability

Again, the 2 situations are not at all the same. What J&J tried had a real basis in law. Sovereign Citizens are lunatics.

If you honestly think "sovereign citizens are maybe on to something," I would encourage you to seek help before you hurt yourself or someone you care about.

They're not at all similar. It's like saying the excuse "the dog ate my homework" and the excuse "my homework was stolen by aliens who think it contains the secret code to unlocking the mystery of the ancient pyramids," are similar because they're both false. One excuse is at least plausible and the other is bat shit crazy nonsense that should get you put in an institution.

Hey, it worked for the Telvanni.

Well, the last time we took half of Mexico, we turned into like 4 and a half states. So more like welcome states 51 through 55.

I'm sorry Ron

He was in prison for 30 years. It could have been because of an argument that happened while he was locked up. If you're on death row, I doubt you're meeting nice people very often.

She was charged with stalking, which likely means she made threats of harming someone.

That tail wag is cat body language for "I'm gonna get this MFer."

You sound like someone who doesn't know history. The US had capitalism with little to no corporations until New Jersey and Delaware changed their laws in the 1890s. That's why most companies are incorporated in Delaware, because they were the first to allow it (New Jersey was actually first by a few years but shortly after repealed the laws).

The point I was trying to make is that there are levels between thinking "corporate America" has too much power and literal communism. We could not have corporations at all and still not be communist.

You don't need corporations to have capitalism.

You've just been banned from the Qatari World Cup.

I've been here, it was beautiful. We stayed at a hotel that was near this beach. I also got a speeding ticket for going 25 in a 15. There's only like 20 people living in Hana and apparently half of them are traffic cops.